Connolly

Connolly v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 1093·4 Cal. Unrep. 134·33 P. 1109
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 22, 1893No. 14,397California2,220 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

On the eighth day of May, 1867, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with George Cofran, superintendent of streets of the city and county of San Francisco, to grade Market street, in that city, from Valencia street to Castro or Seventeenth street. Under the contract the work was to be commenced within thirty days and completed within three hundred and sixty-five days after its date, and the superintendent, ‘ ‘ acting in his official capacity, ’ ’ agreed that on its completion “he will duly make and issue an assessment, and attach a warrant thereto, as provided for in the aforesaid acts (the consolidation act and its amendments), for the expenses of the work, ” at a price named per cubic yard. The terms of the contract were further stated as follows: “And it is agreed and expressly understood by the parties to this agreement that in no case, except where it is otherwise provided in the acts aforementioned and referred to, will the said city and county of San Francisco be liable for any portion of the expense of the work aforesaid, nor for any de *136 linquency of the persons or property assessed.” The plaintiff commenced work and expended a considerable sum of money…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.